DivineHustle

Yeah, no. I think I'll just stick with good ole' LSPDFR.

If they're preaching hatred, visiting terrorist camps, and traveling to countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and the like, then they should be placed on the watch list because they're probably an extremist. Those are just a handful of countries that produce and harbor terrorists. Visiting such a country is automatically suspicious, regardless of your intentions. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're a terrorist, but it would be asinine to let someone visit Iraq for a few months and then allow them back in as though there isn't an immense terror issue in Iraq. Terrorists want to strike right at our homes, and they can easily get in the same way some (foolish) tourist can. I also don't understand how someone can be suspected of extremism. I feel like you either are an extremist, or you aren't an extremist. There's not really any middle ground because if you're possibly an extremist, that's enough to watch you. Well, yelling about someone going to hell versus yelling about beheading, burning, and mutilating women's genitals aren't necessarily on the same level of "extreme". I can tell people that they're going to burn in hell, but that's not necessarily a threat on my part. I can also tell people that they'll be beheaded, burned, and mutilated. One is a repercussion of a religious ideology, the other is a terror-like threat. I can't make you burn in hell, but I can behead and burn you. Killing someone, in my opinion, doesn't necessarily make you a terrorist. By definition, a terrorist is a person that uses terrorism in the pursuit of political gain. A thug or a gang member wouldn't be a terrorist, following this definition. They'd simply be criminals, that people may be afraid of. The KKK, by this definition, are terrorists. ISIS, by this definition, are terrorists. A murderer could be a terrorist depending on their motives. The government doesn't pick who's an extremist, they make it clear by their actions, though I understand your point on that.

Care to elaborate on how including extremists on a terror watch list is an invasion of privacy?

I'd say the fact that they're extremist is enough to either put them on watch or conduct a thorough investigation.

Ever been to Baltimore?

I appreciate the story. It is rather interesting but like these other guys said, there are just too many unsolved cases to keep track of. I mean, my toilet clogs every time I use it. That's an unsolved case for me personally. Sometimes there just isn't enough evidence to come to a solid conclusion and the case is dropped. It's unfortunate but it happens, you know?

I personally wouldn't give my money to a business that doesn't want to serve me. This isn't the 1960's, there are plenty of other places to shop that are happy to serve you.

I can somewhat understand why a business wouldn't want to allow any weapons, but this man is a police officer. Asking a police officer to leave their weapon in the car is retarded, regardless of the location. I'm glad management was able to get it sorted but this really isn't a huge deal, just some nonsense. That second part of the OP also sounds like a pretty stupid situation. An armed Color Guard was prohibited from entering a stadium? Just another case of nonsense really.

I really liked Flashpoint.

I mean, I can literally go purchase a Quran (something I'd never do), and open up the first page and see some pretty nasty things. I'd say that the difference behind the philosophy of Christianity and Islam is that Christianity basis its violence on consequence, and Islam basis its violence on command. In Christianity, there's a set of rules and the violent verses of the Bible are usually consequences to breaching those rules. If you steal, this happens. If you kill, that happens. If you commit adultery, this will happen. Christianity does not call for violence against people simply for not believing. God commands us to treat and love non-believers just as we would other Christians and allow him to make the final judgment because we are all his children. Islam does not teach that, we are not all children of Allah. Islam commands Muslims to slaughter the infidels, the non-believers. That's the difference that a lot of people completely miss. Christianity's violence is based on consequence, Islam's is based on command. Why do you think nonbelievers are being whipped and hung in foreign Islam countries? Because it's a command, not a question. Allah is not asking you, he's commanding you, and it's written word for word. Christianity unites all people under a set of rules to make us more like Jesus: loving, kind, forgiving, caring, and positive. Islam enslaves its believers in philosophical chains and forces them to obey, otherwise, they'll suffer horrible consequences. A true religion of peace shouldn't need to tell everyone that they're peaceful. You have absolutely no possible way of knowing this to be true. You're basing that completely random percentage off of the fact that most Muslims around you haven't done anything terrorist like. It is 100% impossible to get an accurate statistic on what percentage of people plan to do what, because you don't know what that individual person wants to do. You're basing it off of probability, which can literally be completely wrong. Just because most Muslims come out and speak against terrorism doesn't mean that they don't silently agree. I can go on stage and completely slander President Donald J Trump, but how do you know that I'm not just doing it for show? I could have gone and voted for the man, but you have no way of knowing that. I said that I dislike the man and that's all you have material wise to go by, even though I secretly voted for him. It's the same concept with Muslims. They may be putting on a show to keep the pressure and prejudice off of them, but who's to say they don't smile at night when they go to sleep? I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just thinking realistically. This is a nasty world, full of nasty people and disgusting philosophies. Acting as though Islam is completely immune to falling within that category is naive, friend. Let's be real here, a terrorist is more likely to be Muslim than Christian, in regards to the terrorism that we all know today. I'm not talking about, "Oh, that gang is making me afraid they're terrorists". No, you know exactly what I mean in the context of the word "terrorist". There's a lot of prejudice towards Muslims, where do you think that comes from? People don't just make this stuff up anymore. Well, that's where it gets tricky man. I mean, in a case like this, I'd safely say that it's obvious, you know? They went to a terrorist camp. The only way it can be more obvious is if you wrote it down on a coconut and threw it at the back my head. In cases where it's clear, lifetime sentence. In cases where it's not clear, thorough investigation and make a decision based on what's discovered. Well, I don't support mass murder of anyone, so yeah. But I think a significant number of people would agree that jailing obvious terrorists without trial isn't a violation of our core values. As I said before, I guarantee you that I can ask some victims and families of terrorist attacks and come to an agreement on it, but that's just an assumption. I'd like to ask them how long they've been working, and how hard. Shouldn't take that long to reform, "kill the infidels". Seems like a simple straightforward command that cannot be changed. EDIT: I always love how religious based debates seem to end on this note. Can never get a response from here.

With a 14% approval rating, I'd kindly dissent. Congress has consistently maintained below a 30% approval rating in current years, according to Gallup. They aren't making mistakes, they're making gains. If you haven't noticed, those people are all millionaires. I doubt any of them are currently struggling financially compared to your average American (There's that term again). I don't expect anything from Congress but greed, and evidently, that's how most Americans also feel. That's also not limited to Congress, just look at the voter turn-outs in recent years. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/Congress-Public.aspx There absolutely is such a thing. The phrase "average American" implies that Americans as a whole are more likely to feel a certain way, which in other words is a majority opinion. Of course, not everyone is going to be on the same page 100% of the time, but there will almost always be a "majority rules". That majority is (usually) what you'd consider to be your average Americans, from a statistical standpoint. This link can help explain the concept behind being an average American if it's confusing at all. I know it's Wikipedia, but it's explained very well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States

It wouldn't be the first time I disagreed with Congress. I'm not really concerned about how Congress feels though. I'm more concerned with how the average American feels, which usually isn't in sync with how Congress feels. That may very well be uncommon among American politicians but then again, a lot of them have no idea what they're doing, which is evident by their dreadful approval ratings.

I don't see why else someone would visit a terrorist camp. It's even in the name, "terrorist camp". Why else would someone go there? To become a lawyer? It's 100% accurate that everyone trying to visit a terrorist camp on their own free will is trying to become a terrorist. They threw their own life away when they decided to go, no one forced them to go. It doesn't make any sense to visit a terrorist camp and come back to live a regular life. That doesn't make any sense at all. Why would someone decide to visit a terrorist camp? What would be their intention? Is the fact that they went not enough proof in itself? That's also not a very good comparison. I don't visit a war museum to become a soldier, but I visit a terrorist camp to become a terrorist. I'm almost for certain that a terrorist camp isn't some sort of display gallery. Yes, I am perfectly fine with locking someone up indefinitely for going to a terrorist convention. That is exactly what I am saying. I didn't say anything about the death penalty, so I will not address that part of your argument. I think it's laughable, going to a terrorist convention is possibly an innocent decision? Say that aloud and try not to smile, that's not a statement that I can take seriously, with all due respect. I challenge you to walk outside and say that to someone and post their response here. I think it's quite obvious that an undercover agent would be an exception. Almost for certain that getting into your car doesn't automatically warrant jail time, but OK. There is no such thing as a perfect system, but there is the possibility of creating a better system than we have now. Or even improving the system that we have now with some simple common sense (I disagree the concept behind common sense, but just to be clear) changes that clearly need to be put into place.

I completely disagree with the law you all have in your country, and there isn't anything wrong with that because it's a matter of opinion. I have no sympathy (legally and literally speaking) for a terrorist or a potential terrorist. As I've said before, the fact that an individual would even consider such a terrible act of terror speaks for itself. They can rot behind bars for all I care, and I don't think society would have any problem with it as a whole. I don't know a single sane American that would have an issue with giving a life sentence to someone that decided to visit a terrorist camp. This is just one example of how a situation fortunately unfolded well, not perfectly, but well. Because it wouldn't have taken much for it to turn out horrible like a few past attacks clearly have worldwide. What if the Security Services didn't do an efficient job in monitoring the terrorists? Let's turn the tables and say that these idiots actually proceeded to attack and were successful. People are now dead and injured, and property is probably damaged. The debate would then be, "Why were they released from prison"? I also don't quite understand how harsh punishment towards a potential terrorist is them winning, that doesn't make any sense to me at all, trying to figure it out though. I say lock them up and be done with it. A foreign terrorist doesn't deserve any rights. Maybe if you were to experience the loss of a loved one in a horrifying and disgusting manner, you wouldn't feel so kindly about these animals. I'd like to know how the parents of the victims from the disgusting attack on the Ariana Grande concert feel on this topic. The fact that someone intending to do something similar in concept is let out of jail to roam free, just to do it again. Because you'd be pretty insane to think that they wouldn't try to do it again. Maybe the 49 families of the victims from that shooting in the Orlando club would agree that they deserve a fair trial, who knows. I have no sympathy for these people. I've seen and read enough of what they do to people. There's a notable difference between you average everyday criminal and these terrorists. Most of the time, the criminal is trying to gain something. These people don't want to gain anything, they just want to terrorize and do other human beings harm, and I give them the middle-finger for that. Then we lock them up too, have a big terrorist party in a maximum security prison. I also don't quite understand how you are going to convince a Muslim that the Qur'an is a myth. I do wish you good luck on that one, man. No, locking up a terrorist without a "proper" trial does not make us as bad as people that rape, pillage, burn, behead, slaughter, mutilate, and destroy everything that they want.

I think that it should be an exception to potential terrorists. The criteria that an individual is required to meet in order to be considered a terrorist is debatable, but I think it's quite obvious in this case. This person doesn't care about your life or your family's lives, so why would you care about their lives? They decided to visit the terrorist camp, no one forced them to go. What else would they expect from a terrorist camp, dodge ball and ice cream? No, they'd expect to be taught and shown how to slaughter people. They want to kill you, and you're willing to let them out of prison to "be fair". Someone visiting a terrorist camp shouldn't be allowed to roam freely in society, and certainly, shouldn't be released from prison. If North Korea is in favor of imprisoning terrorists and potential terrorists for life, then maybe they've actually got something right for once (in concept). And those people have a problem and need to be locked up. No mentally sane person is going to go "visit" a terrorist camp just for the curiosity. That's completely insane and asinine. They can figure out their curiosity behind bars while the rest of us that aren't fucked in the head continue to live out our lives.

I think I'll just stick with this amazing simulator for now.

If the government pays me twice as much as my car was worth when I first purchased it, I will give in. Give me $30,000 and I will drive green all day.

I wouldn't have done a damned thing but wait for some alligator expert. Props to the officer though, that is undoubtedly a brave thing to do.

Well I probably won't be here by the time that happens, friend. On a personal note, I don't really care about anything in that sense because even if I did, nothing would change. I can't speak for the US, but I guarantee you that most Americans really don't care. They'll say they do but do they really? Even if I did care, we'd still be doomed because most others don't care worldwide. They'll post rants on Facebook, share memes, and like YouTube videos but they won't actually go out and attempt to do anything productive. They'll continue to wake up, drive their gasoline vehicle, throw their gum wrapper on the ground, say "that's terrible" to commercials of starving children, and go to bed. Then it's just rinse and repeat the next day and that's how it will always be. Nonetheless, if our environment doesn't kill us, we'll kill ourselves regardless. Humanity is doomed and it doesn't matter what we do or don't do, we're all doomed man. Once you've accepted this reality, you find much more peace and harmony in life. So long as I need a jacket in the winter, I'd say we're fine for now. Humanity won't thrive forever, it will end, and that could quite possible be sooner than later.

It is somewhat of an urgent issue, but it's not at the top of the list. To be quite honest, I would say the fact that my toilet is clogged is at a higher point than climate change right now on that list. Why, you may ask? Well, because my toilet being clogged has a direct impact on my life at this very moment, whereas climate change holds more long term consequences; consequences that we won't see for quite some time. Or at all in this lifetime and several after.

Bouncing off of what @Original Light said, do what makes you happy. If you want to drive a hybrid, you're absolutely free to do that. If you want to plant a flower, Godspeed to you and I wish you the best. But do not force me to go and purchase a hybrid or pass laws that require me to plant flowers on my own property. That is a direct breach of my personal freedom to make the decisions that I see best fit for my own life. This can also escalate into a political issue. A government feels that since it was able to pass laws banning certain types of vehicles, it can proceed to pass similar laws in similar areas. Next, they'll ban this, because it helps the environment. Then they'll ban that because it saves lives. Then they'll ban this because it's not healthy for the human body. They'll ban that because it can be passed down through genetics to the next generation of children within a bloodline. Once a government starts to ban things for the sake of our own "protection", we've got an issue. I say we leave things the way they are and focus on things a little more urgent for the time being.

A ban on anything personal is something that I stand against. I shouldn't be forced to drive a certain type of vehicle, that doesn't sound very "free" to me. Maybe the government can offer a variety of incentives to those that do decide to drive less polluting vehicles, but I'm against any sort of law prohibiting the use of gasoline-based vehicles; I also imagine that most of the United States would be against it as well, or simply not care at all. As a matter of fact, I'm for certain that most Americans wouldn't give a damn.